It's good that we have a museum to put these historic artifacts into, but I would prefer that we have something to replace them with. That feeling is more intense when I see either a Saturn V or a LEM at one of the museums.

We're lucky to have those in museums. The only "complete" Saturn V was left out in the rain with zero protection and zero maintenance. It is getting a major overhaul now, but we nearly lost irreplaceable history there. (Next time someone in the US says that it has less history than other countries, stop and consider how close we came to losing one of the most significant pieces in the 20th century. Then consider how much has indeed been lost through negligence or lack of resources. Then consider slapping th

Sadly, it costs money to preserve. And politicians don't like to give money to projects unless they can get some present-day political mileage out of them.

Hire 50 guys from 50 different states to each do a tiny little bit of the restoration work. Thats how business is done, at least in the senate. Getting it thru the house requires somewhat more contractors of course.

We're lucky to have those in museums. The only "complete" Saturn V was left out in the rain with zero protection and zero maintenance. It is getting a major overhaul now, but we nearly lost irreplaceable history there. (Next time someone in the US says that it has less history than other countries, stop and consider how close we came to losing one of the most significant pieces in the 20th century. Then consider how much has indeed been lost through negligence or lack of resources. Then consider slapping the person because it's in believing there's nothing historically important that there's so very little historically important left.)

Which is probably why Houston didn't get one of the retired shuttles or the Enterprise. JSC does indeed play an important role in manned spaceflight operations but Space Center Houston is a bit sad compared the Air and Space Museum or Kennedy Space Center. When I first moved down here - please someone help me escape! - I was shocked to see the Saturn V just sitting out by the side of the road falling apart. It's in better shape now but the hangar they built for it looks like a very large pre-fab "Tuff Shed"

I really, really hope Atlantis ends up inside a structure that's at least as strong as my house (confession: reinforced concrete, including the roof and second floor suspended slab, with 80mph large-missile impact-glass windows), and not on a display stand like a statue out in the open. In case anybody's forgotten, about 12 years ago (give or take) the entire east coast of Florida almost got shredded like grass under a weedeater by Hurricane Floyd (a huge category 4 hurricane whose strongest winds missed Fl

NASA needs to be given autonomy... they need to be given a long term goal (a generic one like "set up a moon colony as a dry run for a mars colony, then get to Mars", or "set up a mining outpost in the asteroid belt") and then left alone to decide the best way to achieve that. Having every president wanting to leave their mark on outer space like Kenedy did is irresponsible and leaves them with ever changing goals and a rotating set of tools to do the job. We've changed what vehicles they're supposed to be using two or three times now since they declared the end of the space shuttle. At this rate, an American vessel may never lift an astronaut in to space again. That's not even bringing congressional funding issues in to the mix...

I'd suggest something akin to the Charter system that the BBC in the UK operates under: freedom to do what the hell they like with such-and-such as the objective of the charter, no Governmental interference (other than charter renewal), none of the restrictions Government departments would normally operate under (such as copyright and patent restrictions, civil service rules, etc etc) and the right to hire the top brass without imposition of a selected appointee.

Having every president wanting to leave their mark on outer space like Kenedy did is irresponsible and leaves them with ever changing goals and a rotating set of tools to do the job. We've changed what vehicles they're supposed to be using two or three times now since they declared the end of the space shuttle.

Solution: Instead of trying to "leave their mark" by creating an immensely difficult goal that requires tons of task-specific development and a huge vehicle to accomplish in the time allotted (and then gets canned with nothing to show for it), instead develop a large number of more manageable and general purpose capabilities and technologies, that will make future missions easier.

You know, what we're doing.

At this rate, an American vessel may never lift an astronaut in to space again.

Er, no, at this rate [wikipedia.org] we'll have an American vessel lifting astronauts to space in a few years.

That's not even bringing congressional funding issues in to the mix...

They aren't going to get it because they are a government agency. A public corporation or a non-profit might have sufficient independence to do as you say, depending what strings were attached to their funding. But that wouldn't be NASA, but an entirely new beast.

And why shouldn't NASA, like practically everyone else, report to the electorate? We've all heard the "science first" routine and then seen the internal positioning and squabbling result in unbelievable cost overruns, a la Livermore and the DOE

Is this somehow better or worse than spending billions on W.'s launch vehicle only to have it scrapped and sent back to the drawing board by Obama?

I was worried that the Enterprise's new home would be parked outside and exposed to the elements and harsh smog of NYC. Thankfully, from the artist renderings it looks like she'll be enclosed in a glass visitor's building.

The shuttle headed for NYC is supposed to sit on the pier next to the Intrepid currently occupied by a Concorde. I haven't seen yet what is supposed to happen to the Concorde... I would consider flying out to NYC to see those two aircraft in the same museum.

There's already a Concorde and a Space Shuttle (Enterprise) at the Smithsonian Udvar-Hazy Center in Chantilly Virginia. (As well as a ton of other aircraft. From Udvar-Hazy you can catch a shuttle that goes to the Smithsonian Air and Space museum in DC (I think you have to go to Dulles Airport, then to the Metro). http://www.nasm.si.edu/udvarhazy/ [si.edu]

They also have the Enola Gay and an SR-71. Very cool museum - well worth the trip out there if you are in the DC area.

Second that. It is an incredible museum. I remember being wowed by the Air and Space museum on the mall as a kid, then being a little disappointed when I went back as an adult. The Udvar-Hazy is the grown-up version of the Air and Space museum. Really an amazing, cavernous space filled with cool and interesting aircraft.

I love Udvar-Hazy. My wife and I had our first date there.:) But the Air Force Museum in Dayton, Ohio, and the Pima Air and Space Museum in Tucson, AZ are both must-sees too, if you haven't already and are interested in aircraft. If you haven't been to Dayton, imagine Udvar-Hazy 3 times larger... plus two additional hangars for Presidential and Experimental aircraft (Valkyrie, anyone?). Pima is huge and you can walk right up to the aircraft. They also give tours of the military boneyard next door. Ai

For the Museum of Flight's new space wing, which is pretty much finished, with an available space for a Shuttle. But instead the museum will be getting a full fuselage Shuttle trainer. In a way this is actually better. The Shuttle can't be touched. However visitors will be able to go inside the trainer. Just as every astronaut who has ever flown the Shuttle has done.

How do you know this? They are just as likely to plexiglass a trainer as a real shuttle. You can touch a piece of lunar rock (or at least the grime and grease of millions of fingers coating it) in Houston and Florida, I imagine they'll let people "touch a tile" or something like that.
Alternately, you could just just buy yourself a chunk of meteorite for less than the cost of a family pass to KSC http://compare.ebay.com/like/230209530807?var=binlv&ltyp=AllFixedPriceItemTypes&var=sbar&rvr_id=224 [ebay.com]

The trainer/simulator is one of a kind. People will be allowed to walk through it. The real Shuttles will be on view, but not allowed to be touched. I'll grant that people want to see the real thing, which is why the Museum of Flight wanted one. They didn't get one, but that's no reason to be negative or unhappy about what they DID get.

The feds have extended their middle finger to Texas. As much as I may feel for all those fine NASA folks in Houston (no, seriously...) this raises my MQ (mirth quotient) to new levels. Maybe now that state will have enough reason to actually act on their petulant, empty threats to secede. Please?

Ah, this will be the first NASA ship that won't be at the Cosmosphere. They have Mercury, Gemini and Apollo Capsules. They have a few Russian capsules (not sure which exactly). They have an actual Titan rocket even. To bad:(

Way to shit all over all the NASA employees in Houston by passing us over for New York City, a city that never played any role in the US space program. Yes, we have a Saturn V rocket, but we are also home to Mission Control and the fact that cities like Chicago and New York were even considered is an insult to all the hard work and dedication put forth by everyone at the JSC.

Richard Allen, the president and chief executive officer of Space Center Houston, wanted to bring a shuttle home.

"The orbiter itself is a national treasure," Allen said. "To be able to house a national treasure anywhere would certainly be a great thing for any organization. It has particular meaning for Houston because of our relationship with the space program."

U.S. Rep. John Culberson (R) said the decision for a shuttle to not be granted to Houston was politically motivated.

"It is sad and unfortunate that politics played such an obvious role in the placement of theses retiring orbiters," Culberson said. "The thought of an orbiter not coming home to rest at Space Center Houston is truly tragic. It is analogous to Detroit without a Model-T, or Florence without a da Vinci."

Houston Mayor Annise Parker (D) also believes the decision to not give Houston a shuttle was all about politics.

"This is certainly disappointing, but not entirely unexpected as the administration has been hinting that Houston would not be a winner in this political competition," Parker said. "I am disappointed for Houston, the Johnson Space Center family and the survivors of the Columbia and Challenger missions who paid the ultimate price for the advancement of space exploration. There was no other city with our history of human space flight or more deserving of a retiring orbiter. It is unfortunate that political calculations have prevailed in the final decision."

How do they explain the fact that ther was bidding and other requirements? or the fact that Houston has no good place to house it, or can't afford to clean and transport it? Houston had a shot just like everyone else.

The only think politically motivate is stating that it was politically motivated.

OTOH, I wouldn't really care considering how Houston took care of the Saturn V.Almost like how Fat Tony 'takes care' of things.

All 4 end up on the coast, such a travesty. There was no need for NY to get one considering DC was guarenteed one.

They're probably on the coasts because that's where the tourist dollars go to. A majority of visitors to the US go to the large cities on the east & west coasts. The museums will draw a much bigger crowd (and probably charge extra) for the Shuttle exhibits.

They are going to free museums. The coasts are also where the majority of the population lives--of course, the people living in the MidWest, South (no, like most people, I don't include Florida here), most of the Southwest, and Northwest kind of suffer... hmmm.

The Smithsonian center in DC is free. I just saw Enterprise earlier this year.

I would say when you pay for parking however, that the museum is not free.

Parking is expensive, but then it's an airport - if they didn't charge a lot you would probably have people parking at the museum to catch their flights. Still a lot cheaper than the daily garage at the airport (I'm guessing here - $15 is cheaper than the daily rate at nearby airports here, anyway), and only a short shuttle ride to the terminals...

Also, you can take mass transit to get there. I was there three or four years ago, as I recall it was a short bus ride to the nearest metro station, and I think t

I read that online, but when I actually went, they just waved us in without charging us for parking. I wasn't sure why. Maybe some kind of special event or something? They did have a Tuskegee Airmen speaking event that day.

What? The Udvar-Hazy is free (though parking is $10 or $15 per car), but the Intrepid museum and the Kennedy Space Center Museum are both definitely not free, and are both, in fact, private organizations. Kennedy is here: http://www.kennedyspacecenter.com/buy-tickets-admission-hours.aspx [kennedyspacecenter.com] Intrepid's site seems not to be responding. I don't know anything about the LA location. But having taken the family to Intrepid, Kennedy, Udvar-Hazy, and Air Force museum; I can assure you that 'free' had nothing to do wi

Most of the states that comprise the south (even if you leave out Florida) are still coastal states (as long as we're allowed to count the Gulf Coast too). In reality too most of the the South has FAIRLY close access to either Florida or DC, so distance isn't much of a problem.

Yes, the voters of California, New York, Florida, and DC are being rewarded for going for Barack Obama, while Texas is being punished for going to McCain.

Are you nuts?

This is an imbecilic notion if for no other reason than the simple fact that politicians are much more concerned with the elections still to come than the ones in the past. Politicians are in the game of making promises for the future, not delivering on the past. In other words, if politics was the big motivating factor, why was the

I think all but one site made sense. The Smithsonian because that is where we normally house things of great historical importance. Kennedy Space Center because that was where the shuttles were launched. Los Angeles because the Shuttles were built in Palmdale and a west coast location would allow more people to see one.

But New York City? It seems a strange choice for a couple of reasons. What contribution did they make to the Shuttle program?

Is the point of it to put it in front of as many faces as possible, or to put it somewhere it will actually contribute to space education?

Johnson Space Center has been instrumental in the education of a LOT of young people. I spent time there several times as a student (I grew up 3 hours from it). I would say that making the shuttle part of an education program instead of a mere tourist attraction would be more fitting to NASA's goals.

A much more reasonable place to put it, IMO, would have been the U.S. Space and Rocket Center in Huntsville, AL, where they have lots of space-related exhibits all together in one place. Putting a single shuttle in NYC by itself in a city that has basically no other space-related exhibits makes little sense.

The Intrepid plans to build a glass hangar on neighboring Pier 86 to protect the shuttle from the elements. The enclosure would include multiple platforms to give visitors different perspectives on the shuttle.

I certainly agree that political payback is an ongoing problem but lets look at the locations.

Florida, Kennedy Space Center: The launch site for all US manned missions and NASA's premier tourist attraction.
Virginia, Smithsonian: The county's premier Air and Space museum.
How could shuttles not go to these locations?

Los Angeles: At least one west coast site seems necessary and the shuttle was assembled there.
New York: OK, the east cost is already represented and the central regions of the country ha

New York: OK, the east cost is already represented and the central regions of the country have been left out so far. However you could argue that population density suggests the north east over the north west or the center regions. That is as plausible as politics. Now consider that New York City is the most popular tourist destination in the US. Now add that the Sea, Air and Space museum is the WW2 aircraft carrier the USS Intrepid. The Intrepid once fought along side an Enterprise, now she will carry one. I think compelling non-political arguments can be made for NYC/Intrepid.

I should have mentioned that the USS Intrepid also recovered some astronauts returning from space.

I was mistaken with respect to "carrying" the shuttle. Apparently the shuttle will have its own enclosure alongside the Intrepid.

That said, I wish the central regions of the country were getting something too. I am not arguing that NYC was the best choice, just that NYC/Intrepid is a very plausible choice and that politics is not a given.

FWIW they recently elected an openly homosexual mayor [wikipedia.org]. While Texas itself is still very much in the cultural stone age, some regions are gradually starting to learn how to smelt copper...

Despite the fact that it seems like half of us are completely enamored with the idea of living ideologically backwards, the other half of us are so awesome as to take that as our starting point and forge the 15th largest economy in the world. The same kind of pragmatic people who will elect a homosexual mayor because she is the best choice among the candidates, not because she is or is not homosexual, as that doesn't actually matter.

Here in Texas, that indeed matters. Most of the rual areas seem to be massively anti-gay and neoconservative as can be. Back when the gay marriage amendment was passed, I knew plenty of people who spoke that failing to pass the ban was tantamount to surrendering the state 'to the gays'. Heck, the State GOP wants to make sodomy a crime again, and declare that the courts cannot review the law.

Yes, but you are once again falling into the trap of labeling all Texans the same because of vocal (idiot) politicians, most of which are from rural areas where a few thousand people decide state representatives. It obviously matters to some people, but obviously didn't matter enough in the biggest city in Texas - Anise Parker won by a significant margin. Don't mix all the same flavors of GOP voters (one time or repeated) in the same bag - a lot of them are as neoconservative as it gets, but most I know a

The real politics is the Cold War politics here. How about NASA scheduling the first shuttle launch of the 20th anniversary of Yuri Gragarin's first flight into space--just so they could forever obscure any celebration of his anniversary flight with their own. Such a petty and sad move.

You're such an idiot I would love to just ignore you, but I cant. We have more than our share of 'anti-science' folks, but to label the entire state as anti-science, especially considering our numerous contributions to science and engineering in this country, is to show just how fucking ignorant you are.

Here, just read my other comment (http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2080778&cid=35798092). I don't feel like restating it to people who can't be bothered to do even a minimum amount of research before trolling as AC.

I'm in Texas, Houston actually and I'm not happy. I think the one that's going to NYC should have come here. I don't see any point in worrying about politics or the opinions of trolls regarding Texas merit. I just keep thinking that if we'd been a little more careful and done a better job we'd have two more shuttles to disperse. It's unfortunate.

The formula since the mid-'70s in almost every Western country has been as follows:

Make service bureaucratic and inefficient -> observe cost increase -> reduce service levels rather than bureaucracy -> observe service level reduction -> announce that partnership with private sector will improve service provision -> observe cost increase -> reduce service levels rather than profits -> observe service level reduction -> announce that government is a failure -> sell off everything -> announce record deficit reduction -> declare that your country is free from the tyranny of government -> end up with no service at all.

It all starts when the will to benefit everyone in the long term turns into the will to make short term personal profit at all costs.

That "at all costs" is what makes me distrustful of any government intervention. It seems that people who favor such intervention believe everyone who has any doubt about such intervention is a greedy bastard who wants to kill widows and orphans to fleece them and sell their skins in the OMG!!! PLEASE NO!! FREE MARKET, ARGGHH!!!

See how ridiculous you become when you try to mock free market? Here's some advice: don't overdo it...

I believe we should always try to maximize personal liberty. I see nothing wrong

What are we throwing away? A 40 year old design that never lived up to expectations?

Personally, I think US-based human space flight is looking more interesting than it has in as long as I can remember (I'm 25). We have multiple legitimate hardware designs with estimated deliveries in a 2-5 years. These are low-cost modern designs that take advantage not only of modern technology but also modern manufacturing techniques. They will enable modular missions that can be formulated and executed in that magical

Yes, but that's not really an appropriate way of making the decision. Seattle has been incredibly important to the history of aviation, and yet what we get is a hand me down trainer. Not to mention that the northwest is more or less completely unrepresented. Not to mention the many astronauts that we've produced.

It's pretty screwed up given that NYC got one, and we didn't. And people wonder why we on the West Coast feel so resentful of the East Coasters. It's this sort of spoiled entitlement crap that reall

It's pretty screwed up given that NYC got one, and we didn't. And people wonder why we on the West Coast feel so resentful of the East Coasters. It's this sort of spoiled entitlement crap that really gets old. At least we here in Seattle have a meaningful connection to aviation.

At least the west coast got 1 shuttle and a trainer. The middle of the country got NOTHING.

I think those of us in "fly over country" should stop exporting our food products, use it as leverage to get someone to throw us a frick

No kidding. NY shouldn't have gotten one. They are just a stone's throw away from the Smithsonian, and had little to do with the space program. Houston or Huntsville would have been better choices for historic reasons, and Houston or Chicago for most widespread access to the public.

Sure, Grumman deserves a LOT of recognition for their contributions to the space program (including the wing sections for the shuttles).

But there is a great museum on Long Island (near the old Grumman site) that covers all that and more. It also happens to house not one, but TWO Apollo lunar modules, as well as a mock-up of the Grumman assembly "clean room".

When you have more demand than supply, how else do you decide? I suppose they could auction them, but then people would complain about how that favors the richer facilities - and really it just amounts to another political decision. A lotto might have worked, but then you risk some location out in the sticks getting one. Maybe a lotto combined with high entrance requirements... but then politics would be involved in the entrance requirements.

It is sad that the right wing wacko lobby has come full out to prove that Houston and the surrounding are a bunch of gun crazed paranoid conspiracy theorists, but it is not true. True Clear Lake, the are that houses NASA, pretty much depends on government handouts for it's livelihood, and out politicians do sometime puts faith over common sense, I would like to assert that it does not reflect the general population.

There were many possible locations, and a few shuttles to go around. We need to put these

Calling Enterprise "not a space shuttle" depends largely on how you look at it.

When it rolled off the assembly line, NASA had every intention of flying Enterprise in space. She *was* a spacecraft. She only lacked engines (Main Engines, OMS thrusters, and RCS jets), and thermal protection system, and a few minor internal components.

Shuttles can only last about two weeks in orbit before they run out of reactants for the fuel cells. They wouldn't last much longer, even if you cut power consumption, because the hydrogen in the fuel tanks would continue to boil off whether your using it or not. Soyuz can stay in orbit much longer due to the fact it gets its power from solar panels and, when docked, directly from the space station.

That would be nice, to have one in orbit for a future in-space museum. But logistically too difficult. It would add a lot of dead weight to the Space Station, and there's no reasonable other choice for storage. (The 'dead weight' comes into play for the occasional orbit re-boosts the station has to do.)

Although it seems like it would be a bonus to slap Spacelab (the 'space station module' that sits in the Shuttle bay, was used fairly often before ISS was started,) in and use it as an extra module for the